September 2, 2015 Constitutional Law I

Lecture
Judicial Review
Judicial Review raise the question of authority or power so that
when there is an allegation that the exercise is outside of the
authority of the power as they have been gathered by the
Constitution specially or by law then the Judicial Review can
be exercised. Now, since the electoral tribunal is the sole
judge per the Constitution of all contest relating to election
qualifications, so long as the decision is based upon the sole
authority and not outside power granted to, decisions of
electoral tribunals are final and non appealable. However, as a
manner of exception when the decision is or has been
attended with great abuse of discretion then judicial review
can be have(?) So only in extreme cases where there is
violation of the constitutionally granted authority that the SC
can exercise Judicial Review. It is usually under Rule 65 of
Rules of Court, petitions for certiorari.
Commission on Appointments
The power of appointment is lodge with the President solely or
generally and it is characterize as executive in character. In
certain appointments made by the president however,
specifically those officers listed and mention in p(16) Art 7,
those officers must have to passed through commission on
appointment for confirmation all the rest need not go through
the confirmatory process by CA. There are 24 members of CA;
12 on the lower house, 12 on the senate. The presiding officer
is the senate president, or the 25th member. The Senate
President shall not vote, unless there is a tie. The twelve slots
from each house shall be filled up by proportional
representation. In your formula it is the total members of a
party divided by the total number of members in the house
multiplied by 12 and the product will be the number of seats
allotted to that party and same the electoral tribunal, no
fractional number unless 0.9. Its not required that all 12 seats
must be filled up, it need to be filled up only if it is by reason
of proportional representation. The number of members of a
party elect like the proportional representation must be more
or less permanent membership. They do not refer to
temporary alliance, because at it is in Philippine politics, like
in our present system. The liberal party is not the majority but
the because the President comes from LP, most parties in the
houses have actually allied with the LP, so we referred to that
as MAJORITY COALITION, but they do not belong the LP. So
technically speaking, we speak of proportional representation
it must be more or less permanent membership in the party,
not temporary alliances or coalitions so to speak. If you look
at the composition now at the Senate, especially, where in the
world can you find a member of the house of representatives
belonging to a party list sitting on a CA, only in our present
Congress. How many members are there in a party list sitting
in the lower house? How many per party? 3. that is
constitutionally limited, only 3 seats. 3 divided by 270 times
12? 0.13. But in our present CA now there is a member of
party list sitting in the Senate. Why is that? Because of a
coalition within the ruling party. That is not suppose to be the
rule because the constitution said based on proportional
representation of the party in relation to the number as
opposed to the total membership of the house. And the
proportional representation cannot be filled up only or satisfy
at the beginning but at any time when there is, more or less,
change in the number of a party reflected in the membership
of the electoral tribunal and the commission on
appointments.
The CA will prosper(?) with the confirmation of the
nominations by the president, for those officers again listed
under sec 16 art 7, only those officers. Listed there are
ambassadors, heads of various departments, there is the
mention of officers of the armed forces with the ranked of
colonel and captain of the navy, and those literally appointed
by the president in the constitution. The last phrase is lost

already. The last phrase refers to the sectoral representative,

we don't fill them up now. With respect to the armed forces, in
the equivalent ranked in the PNP shall not belong to the same
category because it is not part of the armed forces, it part of
civilian police force, the ranked is equivalent to colonel. What
is the equivalent ranked of colonel in the PNP? Senior
superintendent. So if your ranked is senior superintendent you
need not go to confirmatory process of CA, because you are
not an officer of the armed forces.

Powers of Congress
Section 1 of Article 6 fully state, is not a grant of legislative
powers because we said (1) the state is created or is existing
for its legislative power is exercising. It is a limitation not a
grant because section 1 states, that legislative power in the
Philippines should be exercised by Congress composed of two
houses. That's why when we made mentions of sessions, we
talked about sessions of both houses, if only one is in session
that house is to adjourned because Congress cannot act if
there is only one house functioning. Legislative power is only
exercise if there are two houses functioning, that's the first
limitation. The 2nd limitation is the so called grant for
reservation correctly understood as legislative power to the
people on the concept of initiative and referendum. That is
suppose to be reservation because sovereign power emanates
from the people and all legislative power alike stem from
them. So, not all legislative power has been delegated to the
Congress, there is a reservation made so to speak under
initiative and referendum. On the other hand, it is considered
as delegate authority because under initiative and
referendum the last section of article 6, Congress is supposed
to enact a law for people to exercise initiative and
referendum. Without that law, the people cannot exercise
what they have reserved for them. So we have now RA 6735
on Initiative and Referendum. The other limitations, as listed
in your outline is first substantive limitation. This is divided
into express and implied. In express is a listing of the Bill of
Rights. We have repeatedly mention here that the
phraseology of the bill of rights normally starts with negative
word NO to put emphasis that this is a limitation of State
authority. You have article 6 sec 25, these are provision
regarding the appropriations bill, transfer of funds, these are
things Congress cannot do. Section 20 is taxation, first
paragraph. Second paragraph is on real property tax
exemption, here is provision that states if real property is used
for educational or religious purposes then it is exempt from
real property taxes. Again, the tax that is real property tax the
exemption based on use, it is not based on ownership. Section
29, no money shall be taken out from the public treasury
unless through an act appropriations made, and no public
money shall be paid for religious purposes and even salaries
of those persons unless they are employed with in the armed
forces as chaplain, or penal institutions. This have been a bar
question several years back. This sec 29 p2 seems to be an
innocuous provision. The question goes like due to the
increasing number of domestic helper in Hong Kong to gather
at Victorias square the people being and the POEA hired a
priest to celebrate Sunday mass for the religious needs of the
Filipino domestic helpers and they were paid with public funds
from POEA and WWA. Is the payment valid? No public funds
can paid to those priest unless they served in the armed
forces or penal institutions. Sec 30 is increased in the
appellate in the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is provided in the
Constitution not by law, but Congress can pass a law
increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the SC, provided that
SC gives it prior concurrence. There's already been a case on
this, the case of Estrada vs. Desierto on the appellate
jurisdiction of the SC over certain types of cases on the
ombudsman. The ombudsman was established by the
Constitution and given life under RA 6770, on of its provision
was to provide appellate jurisdiction to the SC. The SC found
that provision to be unconstitutional because when the

Congress passed it the SC did not give its prior concurrence.

The reason for that is simple, the SC is co-equal in Congress.
When Congress affect the job of the SC, it must have to seek
permission first from the SC. Section 31 title to royalty, we
cannot grant it here. Is it unconstitutional? The answer is no, if
that is by reason of your tradition that you are a royalty or so
long as the state does not grant it.
The case of Belgica vs Ochoa, the PDAF case. One of the
question there. Why does it violate sec 29? Because it allows
for intermediate appropriations. We discuss it already that
congress is the one who authorize draw from the public
treasury through an appropriations law, the Congress must
specify the amount and the project to be funded. In the PDAF
what was done by Congress was to appropriate a lump sum
amount and the Congress persons have the power to identify
the project and the amount of money. And of course the DAP,
in relation to sec 35, where there is transfer of funds.
Implied substantive litigation which is prohibition against
passage of irrepealable laws. General plenary power is
granted to congress. It has the power to act, enact, pass laws
including the power to amend existing laws, nullify existing
laws. It goes without saying that a present congress cannot
pass a law which cannot be repealed by the future congress.
That is implied because is the power to affect any existing
laws. Then the procedural limitations. The 333 rule. 3 readings
on three separate days, printed copies of the final bill at least
3 days before final reading. 1st reading the body prepares the
draft, second reading is deliberations. Once second reading is
completed they are supposed to prepare the final draft, give
copies 3 days before the third and final reading.
Constitutionally, the third and final reading is reserved for
voting no further amendments are allowed. However, there is
such a thing called bicameral conference committee, which
was the subject of this arroyo vs de venecia case. This is not
part pf the constitution but part of the practice of in Congress.
The two versions coming from both houses vary substantially
in its material. The congress will convene the bicameral
conference. T is composed of members of both houses who
are principal authors of the bill. The main purpose of
convening is for both houses to come up with s harmonize
version of the bill and even if there are minor variants just to
fine tune the bill they may convene. What comes out is the so
called bicameral conference committee report, which is the
final draft of the bill. How is it approved? The constitution says
on the third and final reading of the bill. In relation to that is
the requirement in sec 26, a bill must be on one subject which
must be in the title. Reason? 1. Avoid Hodge-budge or log
rolling legislation. Imagine a log rolling on a hill. What will it
hit? Everything on its path. That is not allowed when a bill is
to be passed. That it will be on any subject that may not have
been in the title. 2. To inform the legislators about the subject
to appraise them what they are supposed to be tackling when
the bill is deliberated in the Congress. Seemingly, admitting
one fact that they do not read the body only the title. 3. To
give the public information as well as to the subject to the
intended legislation. The subject need not be an index of the
bill is. There are no kilometric titles. It's always general
description of what the subject of the bill is. Which is anything
that has something to do with the intent of the legislation.

September 8, 2015 Constitutional Law I

Lecture
Doctrine of Non-delegation is applicable to all branches of the
government. This is based on the ethical principle that what is
delegated by the three branches of government are delegated
to them already. Under our Article 2 on principle that
sovereign authority emanates from the people and all
government authority emanates from them. Since it is difficult
for the entire mass of our population to run the government,
our system creates a Republican state speaks of
representation. So we elect directly members of the

executive, as well as the legislative branch of government, of

where the President indirectly appoints the executive officers.
In the judiciary, we also indirectly appoint them because of
the appointing procedure in our constitution for members of
judiciary. What we are exercising based on our system is
already delegate authority. It is not, therefore, technically gain
power for them to exercise, rather its in duty for them to
exercise what the sovereign people collectively has delegated
to them. So again, expected to exercise the power based on
their own independent judgment and not to the intervening
mind of the other so that there could be no further delegation
allowed. The Latin maxim interpreted in English language
should be what has been delegated, cannot be delegated
further - protistas delegada nun delegerin protis. It is
applicable in all branches, but most of the cases in nondelegation or dis-allowable delegation are within legislative
branch of government because it is mostly congress which
has delegated the power to implement existing laws.
Executive branch with common form of allowable delegation is
what is known as doctrine of qualified political agency.
Because executive power is lodge solely to the President
(Under Art. 7, Sec. 1), you could not expect the President by
himself, personally exercise on that is within what we know as
Executive power. And because of our understanding of
residual powers in government, what is not judicial, what is
not legislative must necessarily be Executive. You do not
expect the President all by himself exercise it, personally at all
times, and also especially you have the President like Pnoy. In
our system we allowed the President to be allowed to
delegately exercise executive powers so what is known as his
members of the cabinet. Under qualified inter-agency
doctrine, members of the cabinet of the President are all
considered to be alter-egos of the President. That they temper
core to act any and all powers of the President, unless of
course, the constitutional law requires the President to
perform the power solely and personally. But unless it is so
require, any members of the cabinet can exercise the powers
of the President. Can an executive secretary signed an
enrolled bill to become law not the president signing? The
answer is YES because that is not required to be done by
the president solely and personally. What cannot be done is
when the Constitution requires the President to exercise the
power personally and these are, as the Commander in Chief
under Art. 7, Sec. 18, and of course it also includes the power
to declare martial law, the power to suspend the privilege
writ, and any other power which is in the same import, and all
the rest can be done by the alter-ego of the President. So
unless the decisions of the alter-ego are changed or reprobated by the President, they are considered to be acts of
the President.
In the Judiciary, there is not much delegation outside of the
judicial system. The reason for that is simple, this is the
exercise of judicial power under Sec 1 of Art. 8, judicial power
is exercise by the Supreme Court and such other lower courts
which are created by law. The delegation however, can be
seen in the fact that lower courts decide cases at first
instance. All the decisions can be reviewed by appellate
courts and that is example of delegated authority where the
Supreme Court does not hear this cases at the first instance.
The decisions of the lower courts can nevertheless be
reviewed by the Supreme Court as the constitution or the
rules of court may allow.
You must have heard of certain dispute resolution
mechanisms in our judicial system. You must have heard of
the provisions of katarungang pambarangay, there are certain
cases which cannot go to court directly but must have to be
process under the katarungang pambarangay law, wherein
you are residents of the same barangay or residents of
different barangay within the same city or municipality and it
covers certain type of cases. The entire idea is to settle the
issue before the Lupon before it goes to court, to allow two
things:
1. Not to further clog the status of the court,

2. To restore the neighboriness of the neighbors of the

same barangay or different barangay of the same
city or municipality.
Once the case gets to court, there is also mediation
proceedings required in almost all cases. There are only few
cases which are not subject to mediation and those are cases
which cannot be settled. Once these cases are not settled
during mediation, the rules of court further allow judicial
dispute resolution which is another mode of settling the case
before the judge. These are mechanisms with the objective of
settling the case without hearing it on the merits deciding it in
the case. Now the question is, Are these part of allowable
delegation of judicial power? The asnwer is NO. Because
again, only courts can exercise judicial power . The nearest
that you can see of allowable delegation is that lower court
decides cases initially before it is reviewed by the appellate
court. We made mentioned of that in the question of judicial
review, Can all courts exercise Judicial review? We said YES
because under Art. 8, Sec. 5(2), Supreme court has the power
to reverse, review, revise, modify or affirm decisions of the
lower courts involving constitutionality, legality and among
other, which shows lower courts have jurisdiction initially over
judicial review issues subject to the review power of the
Supreme Court.
If the legislative branch because of the need to delegate the
implementation of the law. By the way, the discretion of what
the law is or what is the subject matter of the law or to enact
a law to begin with to divergate(wala ko kasbot ani nga word)
delegated. That is within the discretion solely of the congress.
But as to the implementation or execution of the terms of the
law, that can be delegated. Again, at the discretion as to what
the law is, even the discretion on whether to enact a law can
never be delegated. That is still within the sole prerogative of
Congress. To its actual implementation and execution, the
congress may allow to delegate to fill in the gaps as to its
implementation. Provided, either of the 2 tests satisfied, 1.
Code test, what is referred to as completeness of statute test.
From the law leaves congress and allows the delegate to
implement it, the law is complete in all its terms. The delegate
does not have the very discretion but to implement the law.
The is the code test because the modernization of life where
human activities, things or properties that may have been
subject or could be subjected to legislation, have become sole
nuance that congress is not expected to cover all the details
of its implementation. Congress has been allowed to delegate
the power to implement the law under what is known as
sufficiency standard test. For so long as there are sufficient
standards to limit the authority of the delegate, to fill in gap,
to fill in the details of the implementation of the law, it is
supposed to satisfy the sufficiency standard test. Ideally, the
standard must be in one law. There is one provision of your
labor code amending the section on fixing of minimum wage.
During the time of martial law because Marcos was exercising
extra-constitutional legislative authority under amended
number 6 of the 1973 Constitution. He was issuing laws in the
forms of Presidential Decrees so that during labor day. It was
easy for him to enact a law in a form of a PD to give benefits
to laborers. But when Congress was reestablished, at least
during the Batasang Pambansa of 1980, and thereafter in
1987 Constitution. It would have been very difficult of both
houses of congress
to agree in any benefits including
minimum wages, to be ready on that ensuing labor day on
May 1. After the congress has been reestablish in the 1987
Constitution, has enacted a law amending the provision of the
labor code, where it created a Regional Tripartite wage and
productivity board or council. This is composed of government
meaning DOLE, from the employees meaning the laborers,
from the private sectors meaning the management. They
were to discussed among themselves whether to increase
minimum wage in a certain region.
That is the ideal provisions in the law where standards are set
as to how much should the minimum wages be. Because the
power of the Regional wage boards are sufficiently limited
because that Article in the labor code provides for the patters

to determine how much should the minimum wages be.

Ideally, the standards must be in one law. However, it would
not be in one law because there are situations where congress
cannot provide standards in one legislation. But it you take all
the legislations still valid on a certain delegate authority. Say
for example, there are 5 laws, delegating the same power,
having different standards. it will take congress standards
together, when they are sufficient to limit the authority to
delegate power, to exercise power and then pass the
sufficiency standard test. To give you a clear idea of what
standard test is, in Revised penal code, in penalty from prision
correctional minimum to maximum, if you try to imagine that
the law was enacted by the congress, the delegate is the
judge, the judge is allowed to impose a penalty. The standard
that the penalty range was provided in a particular provision
on penalty of the revised penal code from its prision
correctional minimum to maximum. So anywhere in between,
congress did not provide for the exact penalty, but granted
and delegate the judge to fix the actual penalty. But what is
the limit of his authority of what penalty to fix? So congress
provided for the limitation from prision correctional minimum
to prision correctional maximum. So that is the easiest
example that you can think of what that sufficiency standard
test thing is. Meaning, the actual implementation was let for
another to whom, that authority of the other or the delegate is
sufficiently limited on the standard set by the congress.
Congress cannot therefore, delegate to another the power to
implement the law without sufficiently providing limitations on
the power of the delegate as the grant authority granted to
him.
Again, this case of Belgica vs. Ochoa, it mentions of congress
of non-delegation. Congress could not delegate to individual
members of Congress the execution of the PDAF provision.
Because when Congress authorized the General Appropriation
Act, the PDAF provision, it is up for DBM or Executive to
implement it. To allow individual member of congress to
identify projects, is an invalid delegation because there are no
standards set as well. Again, it is invalid because Congress
cannot delegate it that power to itself, to individual members.
And even then, assuming, that it may allowable, there are no
standards provided in the General Appropriation Act as to
what project, as to how much amount can congress give to a
particular project it has previously identified.
Disini vs. SOJ, the cyber act prevention act. Under that law, it
is supposed to be council created for the implementation of
the provision of the cyber crime act. Disini questioned what is
the extent of the authority of the council under the law. That
was granted to it by congress, that it could exercise in the
obligations of the entire rules and regulations. The Supreme
Court said the objective of the law is sufficient standard. What
is the objective standard of the law? To prevent cyber crimes.
And in the language of the court, it mentions the cyber crime
law is completed itself when it directed the council to
formulate and implement a rational cyber security plan. The
law gave sufficient standards to for the council to follow for it
provided the definition of cyber security. So what is the power
of the council is to provide cyber security plan. What is the
limitation of the authority of the council to provide for the
plan? the definition in the same law of what cyber security is.
Cyber security refers to the collection of tools, policies, its
manage and approaches, actions, training, best practices,
assurances and technology that can be used to protect cyber
environment and organization and users asset. This definition
serves as the parameters within which the council should
work formulating the cyber security plan.
One of the most common forms of delegation which we
normally come across with is what is known as subordinate
legislation. What is subordinate legislation? Actually its
delegation by congress to administrative agencies. What does
it grant to delegate administrative bodies the power to
implement rules and regulations, to implement of the
provisions of a law?This is reflection of the specialized skill
that a particular government body or agency is equipped with
to determine the necessary rules and regulations of

parameters to effectively implement the provisions of the law.

The common example would be in your labor code. The labor
code is a substantive law. One of the provisions there allows
the secretary of labor to promulgate rules and regulations to
implement the labor code. Is that stately delegation? That is
not stately delegation. That is technically impaired to us
subordinate legislation because from the rules and regulation
given. The administrative body or agency will promulgate
rules, for example the law is from Article 1-100, the rules and
regulations would also be rule 1-100. Because technically it
will cover all provisions in the substantive law. Is that meaning
filling up the details? It is actually provide for rules how to
implement the substantive law. Thats why it is correctly
referred to us subordinate legislation. For these rules and
regulations to be valid, they must have to comply with three
conditions,
1. They mus be germane to the purpose and objective of
the law.
2. It mjust not contradict the provisions of the law.
3. It must not contravene the Constitution.
A class example of that is your labor code. Prior to the 1987
Constitution, the labor code is an old law. It has just been
amended in few parts. The labor code allows though its
implementing rules and regulations, the Department of Labor
Secretary to issue search warrant. To search the premises of
an employer, to cease records in relation to a labor case.
When1987 took effect, Art. 3, Sec. 2 on search and seizure
and arrest, it must changed in 1973 Constitution, because
1973 allows a judge and any responsible officers to issue
warrants either arrest, arrest or seizure. In 1987 Constitution,
the phrase responsible officer was no longer copied. Only the
judge can issue either arrest, search or seizure. So the
question is, what should happen to that role in the labor code
allowing the secretary of labor to issue search warrants?
Supreme court said, it is no longer applicable because role
cannot contravene the constitution. In 1987, its no longer
allowed responsible officer but only a judge can issue search
warrants. That role becomes automatically ineffective and
void even without declaration, because rules and regulation
promulgated under subordinate legislation must not
contravene the Constitution.
Exception to non-delegatin,, we have Sec. 23 and 28. For Sec.
23, that is your flexible tariff clause. The president is granted
the power to fix based on tariffs, duties imposed, and other
similar charges. What is common denominator for all of those?
It has something to do with foreign trade. Look at our local
taxes. Kinsa may accountancy diri bi? C MACATOL SIR TAGA
COA!..haha..When we talk about importation taxes, duties
imposed, who fixes that? Also by congress. But it allows by
the Constitution that Congress grants it to the President.Why?
Because if these are fixed by Congress, it will take a little
more time for Congress to take. And because this is not
dependent on our legislation sole, but to based on world
trading policies. Imagine if our custom and tariff code fixes
and there is a world trade policy imposed by the General
Agreement in Tariff and Trade(GATT), how can we comply with
that if the president has no delegate authority. Hulat patag
Congress which your Congress takes a little time to amend
Customs and Tariff.
Sec. 28(2) is your emergency power. Remember we discussed
here power of Congress to declare a state of war. When there
state of war or other national emergency, Congress may, for a
limited period, delegate authority to the President to address
the national emergency subject to limitations set by Congress.
Sec. 28 gives you the standards by which the President can
exercise the delegate authority.
1. There must be a law delegating
2. It must be for a limited time only
3. It must be to addressed and declare national
emergency
4. Subject to certain restrictions or delegations as
congress may allow.
Those are your standards. Not only therefore, that this is
allowable delegation because the Constitution said so, but

because even the Constitution has provided its standards

itself.
Delegation by the people. We made mention from the start of
our discussion here that when legislative power was granted
to congress composed of 2 houses, there is also a reservation
of that portion of the power by the people in our sovereign
capacity. That in its sense is reservation because the people is
the source of that power to legislate. It did not give everything
to Congress. However, Sec. 32 requires an enabling law, a law
from Congress before the people can exercise initiative
referendum. Because if there is no law allowing the people to
exercise initiative referendum as part of their reserved
legislative power, it can never be exercised. This is one of the
instances, in your preliminary chapter of your copy, that a law
must have to be legislated, it cannot be based on practice,
tradition, customs. As a matter of fact, theres also that
provision in your preliminary chapter, that even if a law has
not been implemented, until it is repealed by Congress, that
law is still effective. It can also established something which is
legal or which is, that a law just because it has been practice
time in memorial because of this these reasons customs,
tradition, there must have been a law covering them. But in
delegation for local government units, meaning the power of
local government units to exercise legislative power has been
given to local councils as part of time in memorial practice. It
cannot be placed, that it all started that there was a national
law granting local government units the power to legislate. Of
course today there is, we made mention of the local
government code. Your Sec. 16 of local government code is
your general welfare clause where local councils can exercise
police power, specific and general. And your local government
code also grants your local government councils to fixed there
own taxes and identify sources of revenue. Even then, even
without the legislation delegating into local governments units
then, this was allowed because of the principle and reality
that local government units through local government
councils are bets equipped with the knowledge on matters
requiring local legislation.
For example, in national legislation on jaywalking. You could
not do it because it is difficult to nationalize a law on
jaywalking. So assuming, per road management, crossing
lanes are supposed at the corners. You cannot make it on the
middle of the diversion road where minimum speed is 150.
Only local councils have better perspective on what activities
to be subjected of local legislation. Another example,
minimum wage, you cannot nationalize because cost of living
is different.

September 10, 2015 Constitutional Law I

Lecture
In this present constitution there are two options
when there is physical incapacity in the part of the president
to discharge the function of his office, temporary incapacity
either the president declare himself or the majority of the of
the members of the cabinet may declare it. In the declarations
made by the members of the cabinet, the president may
accept such declarations made by the cabinet or the president
may contest it. If the president will contest it, the members of
the cabinet may accept that in fact there is no physical
incapacity or the members of the cabinet may insist his
physical incapacity. If it is contested, congress may have to
sign on whether or not the president suffers from incapacity.
So without the need of the call by the members of the
cabinet, congress may have to convene and decide the
president's physical incapacity.
Power of impeachment
There are two considerations with respect to power
of impeachment. One the substantive aspect and the other
the procedural. Under substantive aspect there are only 5 set

of officers; president, vice-president, CJ of Supreme Court,

constitutional commissioners, and ombudsman. Those are the
only impeachable officers. There are six grounds; treason,
bribery, culpable violation of the constitution, graft and
corruption, other high crimes and betrayal of public trust.
Treason, bribery, and graft and corruption are defined under
existing laws but the grounds of culpable violation of the
constitution, other high crimes and betrayal of public trust
have not been defined by law. The list is exclusive it cannot be
expanded by mere legislation because this is a constitutional
provision. This will bring about the immunity of officers by
reason of indemnification of officers. We have made mention
that if a public officer is sued by name in his official capacity,
it may be considered as a suit against the state. In the case of
impeachable officers, they cannot be sued in any case, in any
court if the case will result from their removal in office. The
immunity stands from the fact they can only be removed from
office. The president also enjoys another kind of immunity.
Our president enjoys another immunity which is actually an
archaic rule with respect to such immunity the reason being
the president must not be burdened with threats from being
sued during his presidency for two reasons; one so that he will
be able to discharged functions of his office sufficiently and
second that he should not hesitate to act accordingly for the
simple reason that he would act one way or another that he
may be subjected. With respect to this 5 set of officers no
case can be filed against them while they are in office if the
result of the case will effectively remove them from office. For
example, can a sitting chief justice of Supreme Court be
charged in an administrative case for disbarment? For
example, CJ of CJ is found to have in maintaining a second and
third wife? Or has been found to have married a second time
so can be charged with bigamy? Or the sitting president Pnoy,
and a grade six pupil asked him "why are you panot?". So
iyang gipatay ang bata. So can he be charged with murder?
Abuse of superior strength? Can you sue the president for
murder? What's the penalty for murder? Reclusion perpetua.
What is the accessory penalty for reclusion perpetua? There is
a perpetual disqualification in public office. So you cannot sue
him for murder because if he will be convicted he will be
removed from office. No case can prosper against
impeachable officers no matter what kind that will effectively
remove them office unless they are impeached first. So a sc
justice, you cannot sue him for gross immorality and in a
disbarment case because membership in the Philippine bar is
a continuing requirement. So if you disbar a sitting justice
they can no longer be qualified so that will remove them from
office. So the disbarment case against a sitting justice cannot
prosper if the justice is remove. That's why corona was first
impeached before he was charged with all these cases,
because tax evasion carries a penalty of perpetual
disqualification to hold public office. For example, the
ombudsman rent your house and failed to pay the rent and
you filed a case that would eject or removed him from your
house. Can you? Yes. Because that will remove her from your
house but not from her office. The chief justice nag-utang sa
bangko wala nagbayad. Can you file a case against him? Yes.
Because it will not remove him from office. It will only remove
some of his money from the bank para ibayad sa iyang utang.
So that's the nature of impeachable officers with respect to
their special immunity for cases that will remove them from
office or effectively remove from office before impeachment.
On
the
procedural
aspect
there
are
two
considerations; the initiation of the complaint and the hearing
of the complaint. There are two ways by which a complaint for
impeachment can be initiated one by a one third resolution
initiated by the members of the lower house automaticall that
will constitute the article of impeachment. It is called the
article of impeachment but in ordinary language that is the
complaint. It is an ordinary complaint charging him for
violating and committing any of those 6 six grounds. Do not
confuse it with articles of corporations, a corporation
maghimo corporation. If one of the lower house would initiate,
there is no proper procedure and it will be forwarded to
senate, but if it's not initiated it can be initiated in two ways;
one by a complaint of a member of the lower house [not by

congress generally but by a member of lower house] or by a

complaint of a person with resolution of a member of a lower
house. So technically it must be filed by a member of a lower
house either by himself or endorsing a compliant. It cannot be
just any person. If it is initiated by a one third of the lower
house it passes through an ordinary process. It will pass
through a committee to decide whether to accept or deny the
complaint. Once the committee accepts the complaint it will
pass a recommendation as to whether accept or reject it and
subject to vote of the plenary. The entire lower house which
require one third vote to approve or overwrite the
recommendation. If the recommendation is dismissed one
third has to oppose it before it pass to senate for hearing.
When the president is in trial the cj will preside but will not
vote. If the president is not on trial the senate president will
preside and he will vote. So during the trial of cj corona it was
the senate president who presided, in the person of enrile who
also voted. In the time of erap it was cj davide and while he
presided he did not vote. He was not supposed to vote. Again,
this is a proceeding that is sui generis. This is not criminal,
administrative, or civil strictly. Outmost it must be considered
quasi-criminal because the respondent is also entitled to his
rights under the bill of rights. As to how the proceedings are
actually conducted it is not a criminal case wherein the
required evidence is proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is not
like a civil case where the required evidence is preponderance
of evidence. It is by reason of political party affiliations. You
are the chief justice studying law and people like tito sotto will
vote. Imagine that? A senator by the name of tito sotto will
tell you that you are guilty. So it is not about knowledge of the
law, it is about knowledge of how much was paid to you.
Two thirds vote of the house of senate, less than that
means acquittal. If the respondent is found guilty the decision
can go beyond removing him the office and provide him with
perpetual disqualification to hold any other public office. He
cannot be found criminally. There is no decision to imprison
him or to impose any other penalty. However, he can be
charged with a criminal case because respondent is no longer
immune after he has been successfully found guilty. With
respect to an acquittal, the respondent is acquitted with the
charges it will bar criminal prosecution of the respondent if it
has amounted to criminal violation treason, bribery and graft
and corruption. Thats how simple the proceedings should
have been. However, with your experience in the corona trial
it's not as easy as it would seem because even the rulings of
the 24-man senate on the administrative inequity (?) Is not
based on law it is based on political affiliation.
There are two special rules there. One the rule on
prohibition to file impeachment complains of or against the
respondent more than once in the period of one year. The SC
in the case of francisco and the case of guitterez vs hr
committee on justice, the SC laid down the rule that the oneyear prohibition follows the filing and referral rule. Question is
asked, what is the filling and referral rule? The provision was
interpreted in this new cases because there was a special
issue raised before, if a compliant is file now, where can the
next complaint be file because of the one-year prohibition.
The understanding before was that once a case was filed,
then it should the bar the filing until the one-year period. The
sc clarifies filing refer to the act of the lower house as a house
officially by referring it. So once a complaint has been referred
to the committee the one-year period commences. Once a
complaint has been referred by the house from the plenary
appropriate committee on justice and good government the
one-year period begins or commences.
The question of judicial review. Can decisions for
example of the House of Representatives on approving the
articles of impeachment and referring it to the senate is
subject to judicial review? And more importantly, can the
decisions of the house filing the respondent guilty subject to
judicial review? Because for example the case treason, bribery
and graft and corruption, this is under ra 301. These are
grounds which are specifically defined by law. In fact, in
treason we follow the two witness rule, there must be two

witnesses who must have witness the same act of treason.

What treason is, in times of war a citizen aid in comfort of the
enemy? So the same act must be witness by two persons.
Bribery is defined under revised penal code, direct bribery and
indirect bribery. Graft and corrupt practices are defined in RA
3019 under sec 3, there is a classification on what constitutes
graft or corrupt practices. What if the house of senate convicts
a person can that decision of the senate enable the person to
file a petition for judicial review? In the case for example of
corona, what was he charged for? What was he found guilty
for? There were several charges filed against him. He was
found guilty for failure to submit a correct SALN, because
there were several bank accounts including dollar accounts
which were not indicated in his SALN. Is that treason? Of
course not. Is that graft and corruption? Of course not. Is that
bribery? Of course not. Culpable violation of constitution? Is
that ground for other high crimes? The senate said it's
betrayal of public trust. Again these grounds are not defined
by law. The thing is can that decision be subject to judicial
review? It was not yet tested. He could have tested it, but he
did not. Corona could have tested it but he did not. Just like
our discussion in discipline of congress of both houses on the
concept of disorderly behavior, if a house determines that this
act constitutes disorderly behavior and penalizes their own
member by either suspension or expulsion. Can that
determination be reviewed by the courts? So these are
determinations made and which not have been tested. It has
not been tested but there will come a time that maybe subject
to judicial review because in any decision which was rendered
without jurisdiction, abused of discretion amounting to lack of
due jurisdiction, it is always subject to judicial review. We have
seen that in the electoral tribunal because even if the
electoral tribunal is a separate sole judge, cases have already
been decided by the Supreme Court and said it is has been
rendered jurisdiction, it has to be subject to review by the
supreme court. The same applies to decisions of senate with
respect to filing of liability and impeachment proceedings.
Legislative process
Requirement as to bills
We have made mentioned already on titles of bills in
relation to procedure.
Requirement as to certain laws
With respect to origin of bills under sec 24 the bills
must originate from the lower house. Appropriations, tariff
bills, bills of local applications, and private bills.
Appropriations bill is technically a bill to take money from the
public treasury primarily. For example, there's a bill to create
an office to oversee that a task force or commission to
investigate
the
findings
and
recommendations
of
mamasapano incident providing funds therefore and other
purposes. Is that an appropriations bill? It's up to you to look
for the answer. One thing to remember with respect to the
origin of bills is that it must originate from the house of
representative because the house of representatives is more
representative of the republic. This bills must somehow or
must have to originate because they have direct access to the
people they represent, the nature is that the they are in the
best position what measure respect with what the republic
need. The other thing is that because the constitution requires
that these bills must originate from the lower house, it is
prohibited that the house of senate to act on a counterpart bill
of any of these type before they receive the filing of any draft
from the lower house. Remember our discussion on
procedure, how is the bill pass in congress? One house
process it following the 333 rule, submits the final draft
approved by the house and the other house will make its own
version of the same bill following the same 333 rule. But with
respect to this type of bills the house of senate cannot have
their counterpart bill until it receives the final draft of the
lower house only with respect to this bill. It has been a bar
question, say the House of Representatives filed a bill to
expand the expanded value added tax. The bill was on its
second reading, in the the meantime senator x filed his own

version in the house of senate of the expanded value added

tax. The bill has not been calendared yet but has been filed
and then the lower house and was approved and passed to
the senate. The senate now acted on the bill filed by senator
x, the bill was consolidated and enrolled by the president into
law. Is the law valid? Was the fact that the senator x filed the
bill would invalidate the sec 24. You will find it after your read
those cases. With respect to requirement of bills read the case
of abakada vs executive.
Under appropriations law there are a lot of provisions
there. We made mention of procedural requirements. Sec 29,
appropriations no public money shall be taken out from the
public treasury except through appropriations law. Secondly,
the second portion of sec 29 no public money shall be made
or appropriated for religious purposes except when ministers
or pastors are employed in armed forces, or government
institutions. Sec 25 number 2 is a specific provision with
respect to appropriations what does it provide? It provides
that all provisions in a appropriations bill must remain to that
particular appropriated sum or item where there is an
appropriations for that fact. Meaning the words and phrases
that you will find in an appropriations bill must relate to an
appropriated item. Imagine a budget, it is supposed to be
distributed to department of the government. In the case of
Araullo, Belgica, the budgetary process involves to 4 steps in
our system. So all the monies of the budget must have to
refer to certain appropriated item. So an item has must
indicate the item, services or program, and then there is an
equivalent sum of money that is an appropriated sum. So all
the phrases words must have indicated either the program or
the money appropriated for the purpose, no other kind of
words of phrases must be found in the appropriations bill.
Section 25 number 3, the procedure of the
appropriations for the congress shall simply follow the
appropriations for other departments. In the budgetary
preparation, if you read Araullo you would know how a budget
is prepared. The president submits it to the congress. The
second phase includes, it would require all offices of the
government
including
congress,
judiciary
and
the
constitutional commission to submit their budget proposal for
the ensuing year, in turn the different offices like coa, the
chairman of coa will require the last officer to submit to him
the budget proposal for the ensuing year and that the regional
director will also require the last officer under him to submit to
him the budget proposal for his particular office or
department, then everything goes up to the president, same
thing with the judiciary, the supreme court orders the last MTC
judge how much he needs for the ensuing year. So under sec
25 number 3, with the budget of congress up for deliberation,
during the budget hearings what is technically done by
congress is to asked the department secretaries of each
department how come you need it this much money and they
will have to explain why so that congress will authorize, this is
where all budgetary insertions are made. In the theoretical
understanding of things this is actually to ensure that there is
justification for the amount of money proposed as budget for
a particular office. Section 39 number 4, special appropriation.
As we made mention yesterday. If it is just a special
appropriation the constitution says that there must have to be
a special purpose to which and specify and a certification of
corresponding revenue bill to draw money from the public
treasury. What is the purpose for it to be specified? With
respect to special elections, that is being funded because
there is a need to pass it even without the actual availability
of funds so that there be elections.
Section 25 number 5, is transfer of funds provision.
This has again been discussed in the case of araullo in that
the dap ruling which was declared to be unconstitutional and
section 25 number 5 because one of the issue then was the
transfer of funds. We have discussed this and you would
remember that the sc used the phrase cross border
augmentation or cross transfer funds. Question. Can funds be
transfer? If a money is appropriated from the public treasury
for an item that must have to spend for that item. It cannot be

said that the money is spend for another purpose because

under the revised penal code that amounts to ordinary
malversation. In ordinary malversation, the public officer used
the money for his one private use. But if you did not spend
the money for your own use because you just use this money
instead of buying say computers because that is the
appropriations for, and you bought a car instead, still under
government name not under your name. That is not
malversation, that is technical malverstation because you did
not steal the money, you still use the money for public
purpose but not for the intended appropriation. Transfer of
funds therefore is not allowed but if you read section 25
number 5 you see the parameters when there can be an
allowable transfer of funds. So the elements of conditions are
in that section 25, and if you read the case of araullo you will
know how the sc applied the elements of conditions set out in
section 25 number 5 otherwise if you have found the cross
border transfer which is never allowed.
The law on taxation must be to uniform, equitable
and progressive. Uniform meaning uniformity, all persons or

things(?) Must have to taxed uniformly on the same tax

classification. Equitable rule meaning it is usually determined,
the tax liability is determined on the taxable event. For
example, if its an income, capital gains or sale of capital
assets it must be based on the need so that the taxable
incident or the tax liability will be based on the income.
Progressive simply requires that there must be a rule on direct
taxes rather than indirect taxes. With respect to tax there are
two exemptions. Realty tax exemption, if the property is
primarily used for educational or religious purposes, it is not
used for that. You will have to be liable for taxes. So even if it
is owned by the church if it is rented out it will no longer be
exempted from realty tax. The donor exception with respect to
non stock non profit education institutions theres no income
also in donating a certain sum of money to schools. So
companies would rather spend by donating to worthy causes
where they could claim tax credits rather than paying taxes to
government.